So the envelopes are in and we have our list of winners for the 2017 Academy Awards. The ending was like a movie in and of itself, with the overwhelming favorite at first winning (La La Land) the coveted Best Picture awards, only to have it quickly taken from them due to an envelope malfunction ( with the prize going to Moonlight). Once again, on a major televised event, the wrong winner was announced. It made for interesting television.
Adding to the drama, the Awards suffered a substantial ratings drop this time — the biggest in years. Many will be arguing why this happened, but some are pointing to the fact that it seems that the political rhetoric that is so pervasive on the stage (and offensive to many viewers) has translated into policies that the Academy is taking in order to make sure the results enjoy more diversity. In the minds of many, it was bad enough that the award speeches sounded like a political convention, but now people are getting the impression that the diversity rhetoric on the stage is turning into policies that favor minorities in general and blacks in particular.
Never have we seen so many “non-white” nominees or minority winners. These included best supporting actor, best actor, and the coveted Best Picture. You can expect cynical award watchers to start talking about the possibility of favoritism. Before long I will not be surprise if we start hearing about award winners with “an asterisk.”
The first time I was exposed to the concept of an award, record, or honor being provided with “an asterisk” was on April 8, 1974. How do I remember this very specific date? It was the occasion of Hank Aaron hitting his 715th home run, breaking a record held by Babe Ruth since 1935. Immediately fans of the Babe began to complain. “Do you know how hard it was to hit a home run in the 1930’s?” “Stadiums were much bigger back then.” “The bats were little more than a block of wood in the 1930s!” “They play way more games now each year than they did in the 1930s.” The list went on. I am sure that, after all these years, there were many more “reasons” Aaron’s record was “less than” legitimate to those who held this criticism. I must confess though, I noticed a racial tinge behind this dismissal. Since that date, I have learned to use the asterisk myself. For example, I will likely always raise an eyebrow to any inductee into the Baseball Hall of Fame that played during the doping era.
With a surprisingly high number of nominees for this year’s Oscars being people of color, after a ridiculously long era of being a virtually exclusive white club, some are simply going to cynically conclude that this year’s Oscars was an example of reverse discrimination. If, in the future, there continues to be (what is seen as) a disproportionate number of minorities getting nominations, the cynicism will only continue.
As far as this year goes, there is little doubt in my mind that Viola Davis deserved the Best Supporting Actress nod. In fact, they should have given her a couple of extra ones for how she has been overlooked. I did not see Moonlight, so I cannot comment on the Best Supporting Actor and Best Picture winners. However, I am sure there is a strong case to be made for both. Regardless of the quality of these performance, as long as the Academy shows a greater interest in politics than art, one can expect to hear the use of the asterisk going forward, especially if minorities get a large number of nominations.